I've combed through various search results, but couldn't find a concise answer to my questions. Since this is for the dedicated plug-in for importing DAZ Genesis avatars. I figured this would be the right section to ask my top two questions about the two different avatar creators.

1) What's the difference berween DAZ Genesis vs. Character Creator avatars? 2) Is there an advantage to creating avatars in DAZ vs. Character Creator?

1) Lots of differences, but the main one is the way the mesh is designed. This in many ways will be closed when CC3 comes out (soon) but even then there will always be those who prefer one over the other (right now I'm pretty sure the Gen 8 character is about as sophisticated a mesh as they come... but not designed for animation, or at least optimized for it).

2) There's at least one major disadvantage -- you cannot use CC clothes on a Daz character, which means that once you have your character ported over any change you want to make to the clothing will require a complete import from Daz again (with whatever Daz clothing you desire). The same is not true in reverse -- you can use Daz or CC clothing on a CC avatar (you must import the Daz clothing, but it's a piece of cake, and will be even easier soon).

But since there are folks who LOVE the look of the Gen characters there is always that to consider (I don't know of anyone who actually "prefers" the look of the CC characters). Again, the new work in CC3 will likely change at least some of that, but CC will always be positioned first and foremost for Real time animation, with the resulting tradeoffs that requires.

Alright. Thank you so much for that concise answer. I was wondering what the attraction Daz Genesis models were about. So, I gather that the Daz G8 base meshes are quite an improvement over the current C.C. base meshes. Possibly a preview of what the C.C.3 base meshes will look like. Although, the C.C. ones will be for animation, or customization instead of just still shots as in Daz ones. I'm more into customizing things, and using them in animation projects. Projects that don't days to render a couple seconds worth. I find that more interesting, and fun than just realistic looking still shots. That's why I got into iClone in the first place.

This is G3F on Left and then CC2 on Right. But imagine if CC3 has any type of detail enhancement, it's already close, but it is going to be tough to tell them innately apart. Even if G8 has a smidge more enhancement than G3F.

Remember, you can tweak them into infinite in either case. I don't really prefer one vs the other myself, I feel that they work very well.....together....And when Iray is able to push your avatars into the reality zone, it will be glorious no matter what you do. PS - for games CC2/3 will be 'easier', less materials.

PS3 - get to know them both, and see how they are in a scene. Like KT says, Genesis demands more resources, CC2 less, and thus is more flexible.Just ask curve Man!

TonyDPrime (5/30/2018)This is G3F on Left and then CC2 on Right. But imagine if CC3 has any type of detail enhancement, it's already close, but it is going to be tough to tell them innately apart. Even if G8 has a smidge more enhancement than G3F.

So, the difference between the two isn't too drastic like the graphics between two different video game console generations.

Remember, you can tweak them into infinite in either case.

Sounds interesting, but I'd rather no have to buy into too many programs.

And when Iray is able to push your avatars into the reality zone, it will be glorious no matter what you do. PS - for games CC2/3 will be 'easier', less materials.PS3 - get to know them both, and see how they are in a scene. Like KT says, Genesis demands more resources, CC2 less, and thus is more flexible.Just ask curve Man!

I've read other people have used Iray, and it takes MUCH longer to render just a still image. I can only imagine how that would work for animation. Right now, I'm not interested in making games.

kenshinw95 (5/31/2018)I've read other people have used Iray, and it takes MUCH longer to render just a still image. I can only imagine how that would work for animation. Right now, I'm not interested in making games.

You will most likely hear folks on this forum say the new iRay is going to be SO much faster... but I do think it's very telling that nothing coming out of RL has shown any actual animation done with the coming iRay plugin. It will certainly be possible, but I do think folks here are deluding themselves if they think it's going to be a lot faster than Indigo was (and we all know how THAT went for animation purposes). It will only be useful for hardcore folks who are willing to spend weeks animating a few minutes (which isn't what most folks using iClone want).

Plus it's unlikely to support PopcornFX, which more and more people like myself are finding integral to their projects. You wouldn't get too far rendering part of your project in iRay and the rest in iClone, so that will be a dividing line as well. Personally I could care less about the plugin.

I never bought the Indigo renderer plug-in, but I did get the PopcornFX one, though. I just didn't see the need for for the Indigo one. If I wanted to render a still image like that, then I could probably just render it using Blender's Cycles renderer. I just find iClone's easier to set up, and get to the task of animating than Blender. I got the PopcornFX one, because it can do particles much faster. I use Blender primarily for making accessories, and trying my hand at making custom clothing. Although that is it's own obstacle course. I did see in the C.C.3. WIP1 that process will be MUCH easier, since it can automatically weight/rig the items after load them up in OBJ format.